Politics and Secondhand Smoke

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by PoliticalChic, May 30, 2012.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,829
    Thanks Received:
    15,666
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,984
    1. Secondhand Smoke. Among the Left is a group of anti-smoking activists for whom abolishing tobacco use is a religious calling. When Americans did not respond as totally, nor as quickly, as the activists wished, they devised a new strategy: they told nonsmokers that the smokers were killing them! Since it was nearly impossible to point to people who died as a result of secondhand smoke, they use epidemiological studies, defined by the WHO as “the studey of the distribution and determinants of health-related states or events including disease” to “prove” their contention. 50,000 Americans a year, we are told, are killed by secondhand smoke. Hysteria masquerading as science.


    2. Dr. James Enstrom, disputed the epidemiological studies on secondhand smoke in the British Medical Journal: “ The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed…. Most epidemiological studies have found that environmental tobacco smoke has a positive but not statistically significant relation to coronary heart disease and lung cancer. ” Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 | BMJ

    a. What happens when scientists disagree with the Left? “A longtime professor at UCLA, told that he would not be rehired because his "research is not aligned with the academic mission" of his department,… Enstrom, an epidemiologist at UCLA's School of Public Health, has a history of running against the grain. In 2003 he wrote a study, published in the British Medical Journal, in which he found no causal relationship between secondhand smoke and tobacco-related death – a conclusion that drew fire both because it was contrary to popular scientific belief and because it was funded by Philip Morris…. serious concerns not only about the diesel regulations but about academic freedom and scientific research as a whole.” Scientist's Firing After 36 Years Fuels 'PC' Debate at UCLA | Fox News



    3. “Lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases develop at advancing ages. Estimating the risk of those diseases posed by secondhand smoke requires knowing the sum of momentary secondhand smoke doses that nonsmokers have internalized over their lifetimes. Such lifetime summations of instant doses are obviously impossible, because concentrations of secondhand smoke in the air, individual rates of inhalation, and metabolic transformations vary from moment to moment, year after year, location to location…. In reality, it is impossible to summarize accurately from momentary and vague recalls, and with an absurd expectation of precision, the total exposure to secondhand smoke over more than a half-century of a person's lifetime. No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory…. More than two dozen causes of lung cancer are reported in the professional literature, and over 200 for cardiovascular diseases; their likely intrusions have never been credibly measured and controlled in secondhand smoke studies. … It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. “ Gio Batta Gori - The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke



    4. A real laugher is the outdoor smoking ban various nanny-state governments have instituted. “But no evidence demonstrates that the duration of outdoor exposure — in places where people can move freely about — is long enough to cause substantial health damage…. To make matters worse, in trying to convince people that even transient exposure to secondhand smoke is a potentially deadly hazard, smoking opponents risk losing scientific credibility.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/opinion/06siegel.html



    5. Columbia University magazine included this in its “Letters” section, from Dr. Attila Mady: “The theatrics around the antismoking crusade not only discredit those who resort to fuzzy logic, but also compromise an overall laudable effort to improve public health. There are no prospective case-control studies of smokers. Nor will there ever be, since a properly designed study would require fifty years and millions of participants….Statistics ignore herd immunity and exposure to volatile and particulates since the onset of the industrial age and don’t translate into the real world.” Columbia Magazine, Spring 2012, p.4.


    6. Hypothetically, as many individuals on the Right dislike smoking as do individuals on the Left…why, then, are those on the Left so much more likely to believe that secondhand smoke can seriously hurt their health, and, possibly, kill them? And why are Liberal cities, governed by Liberal, so much more likely to ban outdoor smoking….?

    a. When Liberals hear the words ‘studies show,’ or ‘experts say,’ they cease to ‘question authority.’
    Hence…Lock-Step Liberals
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  2. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,683
    Well, smoking may affect people differently, but I know my health improved greatly when I quit almost 24 years ago. I can't believe it's been that long! When I quit, cigarettes were about 36 cents a pack at the Base Exchange.

    I can't believe people spend as much as they do nowadays (5-10 bucks a pack?) to support their habit. And all those taxes are really unfair to the average smoker who is statistically less educated and poorer.

    Sorry about the rant PC, didn't mean to hijack your thread!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    If you want to really understand how ridiculous the left's war on tobacco is, visit some of these liberal companies that maintain the health of their employees by banning tobacco use. One, they don't only ban tobacco use, they ban the patch, gum and electronic cigarettes too. Products which produce no second hand smoke at all.

    They do not ban marijuana which can be smoked anywhere. The left is convinced that if they can move people who smoke from tobacco to pot, they will get drugs legalized.
     
  4. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,766
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,162
    Tobacco kills. Both of my parents smoked so our home was always filled by tobacco smoke. I suppose I was 'addicted' before I ever smoked on my own. I quit years ago too but it was most difficult. I never smoked in our the home for fear I would addict my two sons.

    Tobacco farmers are evil; they know what they produce kills. Yes I will vote for prop. 29 and that I suppose is PC's hidden agenda to prevent a tax increase in any shape or form no matter the consequences.
     
  5. Bfgrn
    Offline

    Bfgrn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    16,829
    Thanks Received:
    2,480
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,060
    One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
    Edmund Burke

    OMG, a scientist working for Philip Morris tobacco company disputed the epidemiological studies on secondhand smoke? :eek:

    In 1999 the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) brought a massive lawsuit against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers alleging that the companies had collaborated in an elaborate, decades-long conspiracy to deceive the American public about the health effects of active smoking and secondhand smoke. In August 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. ruled against the companies. The court's Final Opinion contains a detailed timeline (starting in Section 5, paragraph #3781, on Page 1380) describing communication between Philip Morris and Enstrom to produce the 2003 BMJ study, and describes how the American Cancer Society had repeatedly warned Enstrom that using its CPS-I data in the manner he was using it would lead to unreliable results. The court's Final Opinion cites the 2003 Enstrom/Kabat study as a significant part of the companies' conspiratorial enterprise against the American public.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  6. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,766
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,162
    This maybe the dumbest remark ever posted on the USMB:

    "The left is convinced that if they can move people who smoke from tobacco to pot, they will get drugs legalized".
     
  7. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,829
    Thanks Received:
    15,666
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,984
    Ya' mean you quit on your own????


    You weren't arrested???


    Or fined????


    Not even put in stocks???



    Amazing.
     
  8. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,829
    Thanks Received:
    15,666
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,984
    I like your post...and it would be a valid rebuttal if the OP was based on the legality of anti-smoking....

    ....but this OP is designed to show
    a. the scientific basis for anti-smoking is hardly existent.

    b. it is one one of the hysteria- crisis oriented efforts of Liberals....
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2012
  9. Bfgrn
    Offline

    Bfgrn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    16,829
    Thanks Received:
    2,480
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,060
    The scientific basis for anti-smoking is hardly existent? You can't be serious PC. It is overwhelming. Smoking is the number one cause of death in America.

    CDC - Fact Sheet - Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking - Smoking & Tobacco Use

    And

    Smoking Now Leading Cause of Death Worldwide
     
  10. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,829
    Thanks Received:
    15,666
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,984
    Nonsense.

    Re-read the OP....

    There scientific basis for such a conclusion is flimsy at best.

    The conclusion to which you subscribe is statistical, political, and illusory.


    Without constant crises, the Left has no raison d’etre, and even worse, is not needed. The Left is both prone to hysteria- expressing exaggerated and irrational fears- and to producing hysteria for tactical reasons. Of course, the Sancho Panza of our modern passion plays, the media, will repeat how dire the threat is: the threat must be solved immediately! Almost goes without saying, the solution involves enlarging government by passing new laws and/or appropriating additional tax dollars.

    Secondhand smoke, bullying, sexual harassment, global warming......watch out, Chicken Little...the sky is falling!



    Wise up.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2012

Share This Page